TITLES

 by Phillip Starr

I've had several conversations with martial artists about instructors who are referred to as “sensei”, “sifu”, and so on, and it became immediately clear to me that many of them don't have a firm grasp of what such titles really mean or why they're used in the first place.

The title, “sensei”, is used in Japanese and Okinawan martial disciplines and means, “one who has gone before.” It is applied to all manners of teachers, from high school teachers to college professors as well as to lawyers, doctors, and other persons who are in authoritative positions. Naturally, it is used in all martial arts schools to refer to the teacher. He is, quite literally, “one who has gone before”, in terms of experience within his chosen discipline.

The title of “hanshi” (Japanese) is tossed around quite a lot nowadays. One who holds this title has achieved the highest level of expertise within his martial art and is a model citizen; he is a pillar of the community, a teacher of teachers, and an exemplary role model. I have to chuckle at the dozens of teachers who now refer to themselves as hanshi. Legendary martial arts teachers such as Gichin Funakoshi, Gogen Yamaguchi, Masutatsu Oyama, and many (perhaps most) others were never given this title, nor did they yearn for it.

Some even reference themselves as “soke” (pronounced “so-keh” as opposed to “soak”, like some ignoramuses pronounce it), which is the founder or headmaster of a particular martial discipline or style. In Chinese, it is “shihzu”, which infers that one is an ancestral teacher (something like a grandfather, if you will). In Cantonese, it is pronounced “sijo.”

The Chinese use the term “laoshih” to refer to any teacher, from primary school to university profs. It is generally not applied to martial arts teachers, who are usually called “shihfu” (or “sifu” in Cantonese). However, it isn't the same as the Japanese term, sensei. Shihfu means “teacher-father.” In China it used to be common for aspiring students to “adopt” the shihfu as a sort of surrogate father. If the student was not an adult, his parents would often present him to the teacher at a special ceremony wherein the shihfu adopted the student. The instructor would, from that time on, have more authority (in so far as the student's life was concerned) than his real father!

In the People's Republic of China, most martial arts teachers are often referred to publicly as “coach” and sometimes laoshih. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) frowns on the use of such honorific terms as shihfu...but they are still used. Beyond that title there are no further titles save for “zushi” or “shihzu”, which refer to the founder of a given school.

Referring to teachers as “Master” or “Grandmaster” is unknown in China. My own teacher never used these terms when referring to legendary martial arts figures of the past. Using the terms, “Grandmaster”, “Professor”, and “Doctor” actually were coined by Ed Parker's kenpo stylists back in the late 1960's and early 1970's. And it's only gotten worse over the years...

Now, some contemporary martial arts enthusiasts insist that titles of any kind are unnecessary and they prefer to call their teachers by their first names. And some instructors seem to prefer it as well. In my opinion, this is an error. I remember the first time I heard a student refer to his teacher as “Sensei Judy.” And she smiled. And then there are those who skip the use of the term sensei or shihfu altogether and just call the teacher Bob or Fred. Good. Lord. Can you imagine what would happen if you referred to your commanding officer (in the military) in the same fashion? I know I can!

The title should be used as an outward show of respect for the teacher. In my opinion, to do otherwise is to be rather disrespectful and/or to place oneself on a par with the instructor. No truly respectful student would ever do this. I recall a discussion I once had with one of my senior students when he asked if I thought of us as friends. “Of course, I do,” I told him.

“Well, what I mean is... are we 'buddies'?”, he asked.

“No”, I replied. “We can be friends...we can be very good friends. But we'll never be 'buddies', as I understand the term”, I said. “I will always be your teacher.”

I'm not sure that he fully understood the implications of what I said. I hope you do.